Was reading an article on Smithsonian site about how the Anglo-Saxons massacred Dane population in England in the 10th century and came across this word. The article referred to the Anglo-Saxon ruler was King Aethelred the Unraed (literally “the ill-advised”). Unraed apparently in not a English word.

Once bitten, twice shy might be a useful maxim in this case - though I'd suggest it may simply reflect the thinking that it's a good idea to have a considered plan to ensure the situation is not made worse by whatever action is taken. That said the humanitarian case is clearly a lot stronger than 2003 - if the powers that be could explain why whatever they might be getting up to is a good idea then I - and I guess most UK citizens - would certainly support action.

I was mostly punning. Currently there's surprising reluctance in the US among both conservatives and liberals. As you indicated, no one is sure what the outcome would be. We increasingly seem to be forced to choose between supporting a dictator or Sharia.

Philip Hudson wrote:In Luke 14:31, Jesus insists that a wise leader does not go into battle without a win strategy. "Bomb them a little and they might straighten out a little bit," doesn't seem much of a win strategy.

Quite, well put sir. Whilst humanitarian grounds may be an acceptable reason to put our forces on the line, I'd personally expect a definitive objective that could be expressed in some manner, and a strategy to reach such.